24 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Student No. 2

In dealing with veterans with PTSD I feel as if mitigating factors should be considered. If the veteran with post traumatic stress disorder is in the moment of a flashback and he feels as if he needs to defend himself that seems to me that he had an emotional or mental disturbance. Sometimes many veterans are embarrassed to ask for help so many of them may not be on any medications or taking upon themselves to get into a program for help.When reviewing a veteran with PTSD and observing the mitigating factors, they are sentenced to life. When they are sentenced to life I feel as if when they are in prison their should be resources and programs available to their to help them. Or another option would to not exactly put them into the prison system but into a stable environment in an institution where there are people that are getting the same help and necessities.

Student No. 6In my opinion, PTSD is mitigation during the penalty phase. I believe that under certain circumstances PTSD should be a disqualification from pursing the death penalty. For example, If someone suffering from PTSD is taking their medication, they would most likely not be any harm to the general public. If they forgot to take their medicine, they were being irresponsible, and t therefore the PTSD should be a mitigating factor. However, if one does not know that they have PTSD, and the kill someone, and then find out that they have PTSD, it should be considered a disqualification from the death penalty. I believe it should be a case by case basis.

Student No.3 In my opinion in cases dealing with Veterans, PTSD is a mitigating factor. Veterans with PTSD are usually not aware that anything is wrong with them or are too embarrassed to ask for help. If a Veteran with PTSD does something while in the middle of a flashback then they should not be sentenced with the death penalty because they usually have no control of what they are doing while they are having flashbacks. I believe that Veterans sent to prison should be offered counseling and other resources to help them deal with their PTSD instead of punishing them with the death penalty for something they had no control over.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder should be a mitigating factor to be considered during the penalty phase of the trial. The veteran who is experiencing PTSD should not be disqualified from some sort of punishment, but the death penalty may not be warranted. Other important factors to consider while mitigating such a case would be if the veteran was taking his medication (assuming that they were in treatment), and if they aren't, why not? If they just went off of their meds because they no longer want to take them, then the mitigation would be harder to prove, at least in my feeling it would be.

That being said, the veteran who is experiencing PTSD for the first time, or if it is an ongoing, untreated problem, then some degree of leinaincy should apply. Asking someone to endure the horror and tragedy that war is, and then asking them to just get over it is unrealistic.

The nature of the crime would also be important, but asking someone who is traumatized and unable to live a normal life upon returning from war, without adequate mental health support is a recipe for disaster, and when that disaster comes, we should treat all of the victims with dignity and respect.

I believe that combat induced PTSD should be considered a mitigating factor in the penalty phase of a death penalty trial. I definitely do not think that having PTSD should disqualify someone from the death penalty especially if they are not receiving help for it. Of course, every case will have different circumstances, that is why I believe it should be a mitigating factor. I do not believe that having PTSD is an excuse to kill people, but I do believe that there are circumstances that make it more understandable. For example, if there is a veteran who is too ashamed to receive help, I do not believe he should be disqualified from receiving the death penalty. Another example is of someone who has received help, takes their medication, and say one day forgets to and ends up having a flashback and killing someone. This person should still be punished for what they did, but the punishment should not be as severe due to that fact that they are on medication and one day forgot to take it.People with PTSD are not seen as dangerous people, but they can put themselves in dangerous situations if they do not receive the help that they need. Regardless of the fact that they are considered to have a mental disorder, they still need to take responsibility for their actions. Therefore, I do believe that it should be a mitigating factor in the penalty phase.

student no. 15 I believe that combat induced PTSD should be considered a mitigating factor. I believe that although they have PTSD they should not be disqualified form any type of punishment, but I believe that the death penalty is not a proper punishment. People with PTSD are not dangerous people but when they fail to take their medication it can cause them to commit murder and etc. PTSD is considered a mental illness and I believe that the state sanctioned murder of someone who is mentally ill.

I believe that PTSD should be a mitigating factor during the penalty phase. A person who suffers from PTSD should not be put to death because of their illness that may cause them to commit a crime. This does not justify their wrong doing but simply a punishment of death can be questionable for people with mental disorders. PTSD patients are harmless when they take their proper meds. When they do not they can have flashbacks of war causing them to be aggressive. They are in a state of mind out of the norm that they have absolutely no control over. PTSD is a serious mental disorder and deserves mitigation during the penalty phase.

I also believe that Post Traumatic Stress syndrome should absolutely be a mitigating factor during the penalty phase of a death penalty trial. How can someone be put to death for doing something that they are not control of and they obtained by defending our country. That does not mean they is no consequences, everyone has to be held responsible for their actions. I just do not understand how it is not cruel and unusual to kill someone who is suffering from a syndrome they cannot control.

I believe that it should not disqualify a veteran from the death penalty. For the single reason that there are many forms of PTSD when it comes to combat veterans. Many veterans are diagnosed with PTSD and it's not just because they sent rounds down range and killed the enemy. Some of them just battle with depression because they lost good friends while they were deployed. So when someone tries to use PTSD as an excuse when they kill someone I feel that there should be a method to look in to the kind of PTSD that they are suffering from.

PTSD should be considered a mitigating factor during the penalty phase of a trial. Killing someone under the influence of PTSD is not the same as killing someone outright because of intent. No one with PTSD intends to kill anybody, that is to say, plans to commit premeditated murder. However, homicides occur because the influence of the disease is so strong, and the flashbacks so vivid. PTSD cannot be considered a disqualifying factor because the temporary insanity defense is no longer valid in court.

PTSD is like pleading insanity in a trial, because during the moment of their crime the person who is being convicted had no control over their actions.Those who suffer from PTSD are known to have flashbacks that send them into chronic fits of anger, where the sufferer can hurt innocent people who are around them. There are still accounts of Vietnam veterans who go into fits of violent rage and attack their family members because of their PTSD, which can happen due to a trigger word/event. People with PTSD should not receive the death penalty over something they honestly can't control.

In my opinion, I believe combat induced PTSD should be a mitigating factor. During the midst of a flashback, veterans are basically unaware of their surroundings and put back into a combat environment. In most cases, they do not have any intent of killing innocent people. These people do not have control over their actions; however, if they forget to take any given medicine, then they are at fault due to their irresponsibleness. Although it isn't an excuse to kill, no one can realize what they're going through. I feel life in prison with various programs to help combat their PTSD. When a person with PTSD commits a crime, their disease needs to be looked at to see how bad they suffer then go from there.

Student #14,PTSD is just like pleading insanity. For veterans PTSD is nothing more than insanity due to life experiences in our wars. If others can plead insanity our veterans should be able to plead PTSD. I understand they have different meanings. From a personal experience my grandfather can not watch war movies. If he does later that same night he will tackle my grandmother saying " We are under attack stay down." The following morning when she asked him what happened last night he as no memory of doing anything like that. I guess the point of this story is that they have no memory of about doing the thing the are accused of doing. I feel a short sentence is all that is need because it was a momentarily lapse of insanity. If others are getting a shorter sentence for pleading insanity shouldn't they receive the same treatment.

Student #26I believe that combat induced PTSD is a mitigation factor when deciding on a death penalty case. When a soldier is having a flashback from them protecting our country and shooting the enemy to help serve our country. I think it is 100% a mitigating factor when it comes to the death penalty. Obviously in some cases I don't believe it's a mitigation factor, for example, if the solider has medication and isn't taking it and has a flashback and goes out and kills someone, that shouldn't be treated less harmful because if he or she is on the medication and they're fine, but once they go off it they have flashbacks then they should be treated as a murderer. Although, I will say killing someone under PTSD is completely different from killing someone with nothing wrong with the person.

Student #7When talking about veterans and people with any kind of PTSD you have to consider if they were in their right mind when they committed the crime. Whether it is anything from someone who suffers from schizophrenia or PTSD. PTSD causes veterans to have flash backs of a traumatizing time. They might hear a car backfire and think it is a gun shot. If for instance they would shoot back and kill someone, that should not qualify them for the death penalty. There was no aggravating factor in that murder, they did not plan to kill someone. Another example is the story from the movie american sniper. Although the man who killed Chris Kyle did not suffer from a fatback at the time he was still not in his right mind. He didn't kill Kyle because of something he did or because of any malicious reason. This man was not in his right mind. The events from his past have damaged his mind. You should not be able to sentence someone to death if they did not commit the crime with a clear state of mind.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is nothing to be taken lightly. It is one of the most devastating mental illnesses that can become of someone. I think, because of the circumstances surround PTSD that it should be a mitigating circumstance in trial. PTSD is not something that can be controlled unless proper medication is administered, and as long as someone is taking their medication, there should be no problem. I think the problem arises whenever medication is not taken or even prescribed. I understand that it is legal to execute some people who are mentally ill, I agree. But as to any case that comes up to capital punishment, there are mitigating and aggravating circumstances taken into consideration. I think that because there because is no limit on mitigating circumstances that PTSD should be considered. As we know even if PTSD is a mitigating circumstance, there could be aggravating circumstances that outweigh the mitigation. I think it is only fair to label this as a mitigating circumstance. People with PTSD have been trained to preserve their own life, and to reverse that is difficult. Combat induced PTSD is something so severe that even the drop of a pan could invoke someone to act irrationally. There is something to be said about how well our fight-or-flight responses work. Combat training only enhances these senses and reactions.

Of course, I’ve always wondered, how would I feel if this happened to me? What if someone with PTSD killed someone in my family or me? Of course I would want them dead. I think that we as a race are vengeful in nature. I do believe that the punishment should fit the crime, in most circumstances. Then I must think, when does PTSD start becoming an excuse, when do people start lying and using their mental illness as an excuse. For me, if they are in therapy and taking medicine, that’s okay. If they aren’t in therapy, aren’t taking their medicine and ignoring the facts of their mental illness, they should have the opportunity to be put to death.

Student 24:I believe that combat induced PTSD should not be used during the penalty phase of the trial. I think having PTSD should be a disqualification from pursuing the death penalty altogether. Regardless of the crime that someone has committed, the person was still a soldier who risked their life for the sake of this country and everyone who lives in it. That is something to be proud of and not something to help use in their demise. War is a terrifying event that changes people completely. They should not be killed now because of the fact that they escaped with their life once before during their service.

Student No. 17During a death penalty trial a veteran with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder should be held accountable, but it should be a mitigating factor. PTSD can cause very realistic flashbacks/hallucinations that could cause them to think that their life is being threatened and that they are protecting their self from harm by harming another person. I do not believe that they cannot be held accountable for their actions because it cannot actually be proved that the person was having a flashback. This could lead to other veterans claiming to have PTSD and using it as a defense to get away with later crimes. Weather or not they were completely aware of what was happening they still took a life and should be held accountable, but the death penalty should not be an option.

i believe that PTSD should not be ruled in during the death penalty. if the guilty is on death row, they are there for a reason. in doesnt matter if they have PTSD because i believe that it is considered a lame excuse. Therefore, i believe that PTSD is just a lame excuse to get out of the death penalty.

I think that post traumatic stress disorder is a disqualification for the death penalty. If it is confirmed that an individual truly has PTSD then it is a problem that they cannot help and they should not be punished for actions that they have committed. However, it can also be used as an excuse and should be deeply looked into as to if they actually have this disorder or if they are only using it as an excuse to get out of their punishment.

Student #10.I think PTSD is a mitigating factor when it comes to Veterans involved in a death penalty trial. there are many things you have to take into account when the incident occurred. first would be if the veteran was having a flashback. Another would be if the veteran had never sought help or if they did but stopped taking their medication or just forgot to that day. At the end of the day a person still died and even a veteran must be held accountable for his or hers actions but at the same time so many things have to be factored in to the investigation. I think thorough investigations should be performed to ensure these veterans get the help they need considering they were given PTSD while bravely serving their country.

Student #19I think PTSD is a mitigating factor when it is involved with the death penalty. A veteran should not be punished if he has PTSD from serving our country. He or she can't control if he has a flashback. Also as sick as it is some people like to mess with veterans to get a reaction out of them. However I believe that each case should be looked into to make sure the veteran did have an occurrence with PTSD. At the end of the day people should not be punished by death for having problems after they served for our country. They should be sent help to help control these problems.

Student No. 13With regard to PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, as a mitigating factor in death penalty trials; it should be considered valid. However, the Supreme Court has ruled differently in regard to PTSD. One example of this is Porter v. McCollum, in which George Porter, a Korean War veteran, was sentenced to the death penalty for the murder of his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. The Supreme Court overruled this decision and Porter was not executed. However, we have also learned in class about times when the Supreme Court has found the death penalty as a fitting punishment to crimes committed by those affected by PTSD. Rather than allow PTSD to be a mitigating factor, the government should possibly consider appropriate treatment for veterans to prevent the symptoms of outburst and anger that are common with PTSD. Treating these symptoms could prevent from the violent crimes from taking place. Regardless, PTSD is a mental illness and should therefore be treated as one. The Supreme Court has recognized this in the past, one example of this recognition is People v. Wood (1982), in which Wood was not found guilty of attempted murder due to insanity, based upon his PTSD symptoms. So, based upon the recognition of PTSD as a form of insanity or mental illness, it should be able to be used as a mitigating factor.

About Matt

An analysis of crime and punishment from the perspective of a former prosecutor and current criminal justice practitioner.
The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the opinions or postions of any county, state or federal agency.